On Nov 11, 2007 3:34 PM, David MacIver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per-function type annotations are considered good practice in Haskell
because
it has an undecideable type system but not in ML, where you generally see no
type annotations whatsoever.
Haskell's core type system isn't
On Sunday 11 November 2007 15:34, David MacIver wrote:
On Nov 11, 2007 1:54 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Explicit types also have disadvantages. I think it is only fair to
consider both approaches.
Certainly. I'm perfectly willing to consider implicit types as a
valuable thing.
On Nov 10, 2007 1:33 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 November 2007 04:33, hlovatt wrote:
public interface Exp extends MultipleDispatch { Exp d( Var x ); }
public abstract class AbstractExp implements Exp {
public final Exp d( Var x ) { return null; } // Body
On Nov 7, 2007 10:00 AM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 05:21, hlovatt wrote:
Therefore multiple dispatch provides the best of both worlds...
No one seems to have replied, so I thought I would. IANAExpert
disclaimers here. :-) Hopefully this will inspire
In the end, there may be more aspects of Scala that I consider to
be sub-optimal design decisions.
Jon,
By sub-optimal design decisions, do you mean sub-optimal in the
context of what Scala is actually trying to be, or sub-optimal in the
context of what you'd like Scala to be? I can
On Nov 1, 10:01 pm, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could a CAML derivative language for the JVM gain the same traction that F# is
gaining on .NET?
Perhaps if someone invested the same amount of money in it... (I guess
that's a bit cynical, but only a bit.)
Matt
F# was a research project. I doubt there would be enough research-fu
in just doing it again for the JVM, which is after all very similar.
On 11/1/07, Matt Hellige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:01 pm, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could a CAML derivative language for the JVM
